Re-visiting Christian Nationalism

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

More bias.  Bad orange man, TDS. These are things MAGA and Trump  supporters use anytime anyone criticizes Trump.  The ones who have what they call TDS are the ones who support the felon.

So "Bad Orange Man" and "TDS" are intolerable, but you calling him "the felon" is hunky dory?

What were those felonies, BTW?

How about "The Guy Who Literally Took an Assassin's Bullet, Then Stood Up and  - While Bloodied - Pumped His First and Shouted 'Fight, Fight, Fight!'"?  Can I call him that?

So,

• Yes, this man has said some vulgar things about women.  I find that stuff, well, vulgar and inexcusable.
• Yes, he cheated on his wife.  Again, inexcusable.
• Some of his political decisions have flawed.
• He's brash and uncouth and derisive in his personal invective.  He needs to improve on that score.

On the other hand,

• He has done a lot of good things as president.  
• And his wife and children seem to genuinely love him.
• And much of the invective against him has been and is ad hoc, pretextual, exaggerated, fabricated, based on simple policy disagreement, and so on.
• And I think he genuinely loves America.  (I don't think the previous POTUS, or Mr. Trump's prior and more recent opponents, do.)
• I think he is well situated to make important and difficult changes to the American political scene. He's a billionaire, so he's not as beholden to special interests, nor does he need to arrange for a feathered nest after he leaves office (unlike pretty much all of his predecessors), and he's kind of old, and he's barred from seeking re-election, so he has more options to do things that are good for the country, while also being potentially difficult / painful / unpopular.
• I am largely - but not completely - on board with both the broad and particular policy changes in his EOs, and with his other executive efforts (a particular exception being that I think, apparently contrary to his immigration enforcement plans, we need to make accommodations for illegal aliens who have been here a long time, but who have otherwise been law-abiding and contributing members of society).
• I am thrilled with him creating more accountability, reducing government waste, getting rid of graft and corruption, and so on.
• And again, he took a bullet, and - in the following moments of panic and terror - he stood up, stopped his security detail for a moment, and while bleeding from the head, he pumped his fist in the air and shouted "Fight, Fight, Fight!"

There can be circumstances that, in the moment, show you the real measure of a man.  That afternoon in Pennsylvania, I think we saw something that was, or should be, acknowledged across-the-board as gutsy, brave, and as "American" as all get-out, and in the best sense of the word.  

I have found the last few weeks interesting.  Latter-day Saints are supposed to be the judgmental, condemnatory ones, but I have been hectored and disparaged precisely because I have not done this with Mr. Trump, and have instead looked past his flaws and appreciated him despite those flaws. 

I feel the same way about Dr. King, whom we can characterize as a great leader of the Civil Rights Movement, or as a serial philanderer and plagiarist.

I feel the same way about Mahatma Gandhi, whom we can characterize as a great statesman who stood up for the rights of the people of India, or as a racist and sexual weirdo.

I feel the same way about Thomas Jefferson, whom we can characterize as a Founding Father and the principal author of the Declaration of Independence, or as a slaveholder who fathered children with one of his slaves.

And so on.

Also, Mr. Trump is, I believe, appealing his convictions.

Also, the criminal case sure seemed to be, um, fishy.  See, e.g., here:

Quote

In his most recent update on the trial, Andrew McCarthy concisely explicates the absurdity of the prosecution with links to previous columns that support each point. Under New York’s state constitution, the felony statute invoked gives insufficient notice of what it is criminalizing. The indictment fails to explain what laws Trump is alleged to have broken. Bragg purports to enforce federal law over which he has no enforcement jurisdiction. To top it off, Bragg’s version of federal campaign-finance law — over which he has no authority — diverges from the interpretations followed by the two federal agencies with exclusive jurisdiction over that law (the Justice Department and the FEC). Other than that, gangbusters.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 12, 2025 by smac97

[smac97]

51 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Honestly, I’m not particularly interested in the church’s position, which is at odds with your definition of when life begins.

I don't think so.

51 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

If it begins at conception and implantation, any abortion, the result of rape or incest or otherwise, is equally killing a baby. 

Yes, "killing."  But not "equally."

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

7 minutes ago, Analytics said:

No, “strong atheism” is a the result of a logical proof against certain nonsensical conceptions of “God.” It isn’t an expression of faith any more than denying the existence of square circles is an expression of faith. 

The affirmative denial of the existence of God is a statement of faith.  Not knowledge.  Not empirical proof.

Some atheists affirmatively deny the existence of God.  When they do, the are expressing a matter of faith.

7 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Furthermore, this distinction between “weak” and “strong” atheism is pretty dated. These days, most atheists are simply empiricists who don’t believe in “God” because of a lack of evidence.

Sure.  I find them to be equivalent to agnostics.

Meanwhile, however, the atheists who affirmatively deny the existence of God make such declarations on faith.  Not on knowledge or empirical proof.

7 minutes ago, Analytics said:

You can be pretty confident that any atheist you may talk to more-or-less believes what Dawkins does: he probably lacks belief in “God” because of a lack of evidence, and thinks the possibility of “God” existing is low, depending on how you define “God."

Perhaps so.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Analytics]

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The affirmative denial of the existence of God is a statement of faith.  Not knowledge.  Not empirical proof.

What specific affirmative denial of "God" are you talking about? Could you show me an example of somebody who denies the existence of "God" as a matter of faith? 

Again, this whole concept is a bit dated and goes back to philosophical discussions that few people think are still very relevant. George Smith says:

An explicit atheist is one who rejects belief in a god. This deliberate rejection of theism presupposes familiarity with theistic beliefs and is sometimes characterized as anti-theism.

There are many motivations for explicit atheism, some rational and some not. Explicit atheism may be motivated by psychological factors. A man may disbelieve in god because he hates his religious parents, or because his wife deserted him for the neighborhood minister. Or, on a more sophisticated level, one may feel that life is futile and helpless, and that there is no emotional room for god in a tragic universe. Motivations such as these may be of psychological interest, but they are philosophically irrelevant. They are not rational grounds for atheism, and we shall not consider them here.

The most significant variety of atheism is explicit atheism of a philosophical nature. This atheism contends that the belief in god is irrational and should therefore be rejected. Since this version of explicit atheism rests on a criticism of theistic beliefs, it is best described as critical atheism.

Critical atheism presents itself in various forms. It is often expressed by the statement, “I do not believe in the existence of a god or supernatural being.” This profession of nonbelief often derives from the failure of theism to provide sufficient evidence in its favor. Faced with a lack of evidence, this explicit atheist sees no reason whatsoever for believing in a supernatural being.

Critical atheism also assumes stronger forms, such as, “God does not exist” or, “The existence of a god is impossible.” These assertions are usually made after a particular concept of god, such as the God of Christianity, is judged to be absurd or contradictory. Just as we are entitled to say that a “square-circle” does not and cannot possibly exist, so we are entitled to say that the concept of god, if it entails a contradiction, does not and cannot possibly exist.

Smith, George H.. Atheism: The Case Against God (The Skeptic's Bookshelf) (Location 375). Kindle Edition. 

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Some atheists affirmatively deny the existence of God.  When they do, the are expressing a matter of faith.

Give me a specific example of an atheist who afirmatively denies the existence of God as a matter of faith and not as a matter of logic as described by George H. Smith. Just one.

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Sure.  I find them to be equivalent to agnostics.

No. Theists believe in God. Atheists lack belief in God. The people you think of as agnostics are really all atheists--they lack a belief in God. In contrast:

Agnosticism, as a general term, now signifies the impossibility of knowledge in a given area. An agnostic is a person who believes that something is inherently unknowable by the human mind. When applied to the sphere of theistic belief, an agnostic is one who maintains that some aspect of the supernatural is forever closed to human knowledge.

Properly considered, agnosticism is not a third alternative to theism and atheism because it is concerned with a different aspect of religious belief. Theism and atheism refer to the presence or absence of belief in a god; agnosticism refers to the impossibility of knowledge with regard to a god or supernatural being.

The term “agnostic” does not, in itself, indicate whether or not one believes in a god. Agnosticism can be either theistic or atheistic.

The agnostic theist believes in the existence of god, but maintains that the nature of god is unknowable. The medieval Jewish philosopher, Maimonides, is an example of this position. He believed in god, but refused to ascribe positive attributes to this god on the basis that these attributes would introduce plurality into the divine nature—a procedure that would, Maimonides believed, lead to polytheism.11 According to the religious agnostic, we can state that god is, but—due to the unknowable nature of the supernatural—we cannot state what god is.

Like his theistic cousin, the agnostic atheist maintains that any supernatural realm is inherently unknowable by the human mind, but this agnostic suspends his judgment one step further back. For the agnostic atheist, not only is the nature of any supernatural being unknowable, but the existence of any supernatural being is unknowable as well. We cannot have knowledge of the unknowable; therefore, concludes this agnostic, we cannot have knowledge of god’s existence. Because this variety of agnostic does not subscribe to theistic belief, he qualifies as a kind of atheist.

Smith, George H.. Atheism: The Case Against God (The Skeptic's Bookshelf) (Location 178). Kindle Edition. 

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Meanwhile, however, the atheists who affirmatively deny the existence of God make such declarations on faith.  Not on knowledge or empirical proof.

Can you give me an example of somebody who says they affirmatively deny the existence of God as a matter of faith?

[smac97]

24 minutes ago, Analytics said:

I appreciate your responses. I think your point about mens rea ties into jkwilliams’s argument about viability. Imagine a mother saying, "I absolutely, positively, literally, cannot handle this pregnancy."

Imagine a mother saying, "I absolutely, positively, literally, cannot handle this {newborn baby}."

Can she kill the baby?  If not, why not?

24 minutes ago, Analytics said:

At 8.5 months, she has options—she can induce labor and put the baby up for adoption.

After birth, she also has options.  She can abandon the baby under "Safe Haven" laws, or put her up for adoption.

24 minutes ago, Analytics said:

After birth, she can legally surrender the child at a fire station. But at 4 weeks, those alternatives don’t exist.

"Alternatives" to . . . what?

24 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Quote

I don't think so.  "Personhood" is not an all-or-nothing thing.  We grant it in increments...

That sounds like something a pro-choice person would say.

The pro-abortion crowd may well say some things with which I agree, while in the end I still generally disagree with the notion of electively killing in utero babies.

24 minutes ago, Analytics said:

If personhood exists in increments, then a 4-week-old fetus only has a fraction of the rights of a fully developed person.

"If personhood exists in increments, then a 4-week-old {newborn baby} only has a fraction of the rights of a fully developed person."

So can mom (or anyone else, for that matter) kill the baby, the 4-week-old? If not, why not?

24 minutes ago, Analytics said:

In that case, wouldn’t the mother’s autonomy over her own body take precedence over the state’s interest in protecting a being with only partial personhood?

That depends, I suppose.  If a choice must be made between (A) a temporary (though still significant) infringement on the mother's bodily autonomy (which, given that she presumably consented to the act which got her pregnant, is a stretch on the term "infringement"), and (B) the life of the child, which would prevail?  

I have explained my position on the relationship between self-governance/autonomy and abortion several times. 

See, e.g., this comment in April 2021:

Quote

Quote

This seems like a very fundamental right to self-govern.

I agree.  I commented on this back in 2019:

Quote

I find the "'controlling the agency of women' agenda" claim to be absurd.  I couldn't care less what women do to their hair or ears or any other of their body.  Tattoos?  Whatever.  Elective cosmetic surgery?  As you like.  Sterilization?  It's your choice.  And on and on and on.

I hold the concept of bodily autonomy in high regard.  The only reason I think about abortion is because it involves the life of a baby.  I think that is the overwhelmingly predominant concern of pro-lifers.  So the accusation that we (including around half of all women) have some sort of dark and twisted desire to "control the agency of women" is absurd.  Stupid.  I reject it out-of-hand.

The right to self-govern is not really at issue.  The right to electively kill a defenseless baby is the issue.d

Quote

I'd be curious how a libertarian or a small-government conservative could argue for Government decision making in these cases.

I think the key issue is the humanity of the unborn child.  If the child is a human being, then it has rights.  If it has rights (including, notably, the right to live), then those rights deserve protection.

The "Police Power" under the U.S. Constitution refers to "the capacity of the states to regulate behavior and enforce order within their territory for the betterment of the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of their inhabitants."

And this from June 2022:

Quote

Politics are very messy.  And there are few portions of it more controversial and emotional and zeal-inducing than the regulation of abortion.  There are reasonable arguments made on both sides.

The pro-choice folks have some very valid points to make about the importance of bodily autonomy, self-determination, physical/emotional risks to the mother, privacy rights, proper limitations on governmental regulation/oversight, sociological and financial risks/considerations, "back-alley abortions," and so on.

The pro-life folks also have some very valid points to make about the santity of human life, preserving the lives of the unborn, balancing the rights of the mother with the rights of the unborn child, the concept of "personhood," eugenics, the adverse effects of abortion on the mother, adoption, "Safe Haven" laws, port-abortion regrets, "slippery slope" arguments, and so on.

Given these messy complexities, I can understand that the Church is looking to remind its members of "correct principles" in the doctrines of the Church regarding abortion, and then stepping back and let the members mostly "govern themselves."

And this from May 2022:

Quote

Quote

I’m not trying to start an argument, but if there is inherent “personhood” in a fetus, then all abortions would be considered killing a person.

I think reasonable principles can be utilized in this context.  A few that come to mind:

Principle 1: A fetus is, during much of its development, an inchoate person, but a person nonetheless.  The value of this person matters.  A lot.  A lot.  It is a central consideration.  Many of the justifications used for elective abortions (matters of convenience, expense, preference, etc.) are abhorrent, even evil, and ought not be tolerated where the life of the child - who has personhood - is at stake.  If a young mother is having difficulties with her newborn, do we as a society take a 100% "hands off" approach and let her do whatever she wants?  Drug the baby so that he sleeps at night?  Strike the baby when he's crying?  Kill the baby if he's inconvenient?  No, no and no.  Why?  Because the child's personhood is acknowledged, and the government has a role in protecting the child.  The humanity, the personhood of the child is a central consideration here.

Principle 2: There can be circumstances in which the pregnancy is not fairly attributed to the mother (rape, incest), such that she cannot be said to have consented to the conduct which precipitated the pregnancy.  In other words, free will has been materially undermined.  This may therefore create grounds for the state to craft limited and narrow exceptions to a general rule protecting the life of the unborn child.

Principle 3: There can also be circumstances in which there is a genuine moral dilemma, such as the life of the mother is materially at risk and/or where the child will not survive birth.  Society must therefore tolerate one terrible choice (death of the child) or another (death of the mother).  Again, this may therefore create grounds for the state to craft limited and narrow exceptions to a general rule protecting the life of the unborn child.

Principle 4: Absent force, coercion or deceit, pregnancy is an utterly foreseeable - though plainly not inevitable - consequence of sexual activity.  It is therefore an avoidable consequence.  Once the consequence has materialized, another's personhood is at stake.

Principle 5: "Safe haven" laws allowing abandonment of the newborn child, no questions asked, weaken the public policy argument pertaining to women being obligated to spend 18 years raising and paying for the child.  Also, those who truly find elective abortion to be abhorrent should prepare themselves and stand ready to adopt unwanted children abandoned by their birth mothers under such laws.

Principle 6: The structure of the Constitution is better supported by leaving this issue to the states rather than to the Nine Enrobed Ones.

Principle 7: This is not the first time we as as a society have struggled to address the legal ramifications of granting personhood to parties previously denied it.  The stain of slavery is still on us, though it was abolished long ago.  Our country, our system of laws, treated black men, women and children as chattel, and refused them personhood and the legal rights associated therewith.  It took, and still takes, much effort to undo this terrible wrong.  It is now time to start undoing the terrible wrong of dehumanizing unborn children by denying them personhood and characterizing them as parasites, blobs of cells, and so on.

Principle 8: We as a society ought to hold the concept of bodily autonomy in high regard.  Abortion is distinguishable from other manifestations of bodily autonomy because it involves the life of a baby.  The personhood of the child matters.

Principle 9: We should continue to seek to use persuasion and education to reduce unwanted pregnancies, and also inculcate society with the notion that human life, including the lives of the unborn, has incalculable worth.  We ought to work to overcome the misanthropy that has seeped into our society.

• "I hold the concept of bodily autonomy in high regard.  The only reason I think about abortion is because it involves the life of a baby."
• "The right to self-govern is not really at issue.  The right to electively kill a defenseless baby is the issue."
• "We as a society ought to hold the concept of bodily autonomy in high regard.  Abortion is distinguishable from other manifestations of bodily autonomy because it involves the life of a baby.  The personhood of the child matters."

I re-affirm these statements.

And I re-affirm them again here.

24 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Quote

I think the morality of the thing is, or ought to be, generally upstream from the legality of the thing.

Perhaps so, but morality and legality are two different issues.

Much of what we prescribe and proscribe in the law are based on commonly-held notions of morality.  

24 minutes ago, Analytics said:

On the moral side, @jkwilliams is clearly anti-abortion. But on the legal side, he supports choice up until viability.

"On the moral side, @jkwilliams is clearly {opposed to slavery}. But on the legal side, he supports {the} choice {of slaveholders to hold or free their slaves}."

I think there was a pretty profound moral component to the abolition of slavery.  Amazing Grace is one of my favorite movies.

Wholly differentiating between "morality" and "legality" sounds nice on paper, but it's not really the way the world works because the rights of more than just the mother are in play, or ought to be.  

You and JK and everyone else can only say this stuff by refusing to address the humanity of the unborn, which is pretty much how we justified slavery for centuries.  In time, we came around to addressing, to admitting and acknowledging, the humanity of slaves.  Then we fought a war to free them.  Then we spent a century muddling around before putting our black brothers and sisters on equal footing under the law.  We have spent the 60+ years since mostly in the "hearts and minds" phase of things.  And we still have a ways to go.

But it all started with acknowledgment of other persons' humanity.  I think we need to do this in the context of abortion.  I think we need to acknowledge the humanity of in utero babies.  We then proceed from there.

24 minutes ago, Analytics said:

That distinction matters, and when we debate Roe v. Wade, we aren’t talking about the moral issue, we're talking about the legal issue.

"That distinction matters, and when we debate {Dred Scott v. Sandford}, we aren’t talking about the moral issue, we're talking about the legal issue."

I'm not sure Mr. Scott would agree with this sentiment.

24 minutes ago, Analytics said:

If I may be vulnerable for a moment—my daughter became sexually active earlier than I would have wanted. When we talked about what would happen if she got pregnant, she said, almost flippantly, "I’d just have an abortion." I told her that if that happened, she should talk to me first. I promised I’d pay for all her medical care, that I’d adopt the baby myself, that this wouldn’t just be a “mistake"—it would be my grandchild. I urged her to think beyond the moment and consider the long-term effects of abortion. I begged her not to have sex, not to get pregnant, and, if she did, not to have an abortion.

But after all of that, if she still insisted on having one, I would be devastated—but I wouldn’t stop her. Because despite my moral opposition, I also believe in personal freedom and small government.  I don’t want jack-booted government agents arresting and prosecuting women for abortion. I may oppose abortion, but does that mean I have to favor criminalizing it? Does holding a personal conviction require forcing it on others through law?

Thank you for sharing.  Please see my prior comments about criminalizing recipients of abortion.

24 minutes ago, Analytics said:

My daughter ended up marrying her high school sweetheart, and had this same conversation with the woman who is now her mother-in-law. When Roe v. Wade was overturned, her mother-in-law posted something on Facebook about how wonderful this was and how great America is for now making abortions illegal. My daughter posted in response, “But do you remember a couple of years ago when you asked me what I’d do if I got pregnant and I said I’d get an abortion, and you said ‘yes, I think that would be best.’? Why did you support me in having an abortion but are not in favor of making it illegal for others?”

Embarrassed beyond belief, my daughter’s mother-in-law deleted the thread—because suddenly, the issue wasn’t just abstract moral posturing anymore but was about her own real-world decisions.

Or . . . because she was being hypocritical and grossly inconsistent on an important moral issue.  And because her daughter-in-law had publicly caller her out.

If I may likewise be vulnerable, if my daughter became pregnant, I would have done as you did, but that's because I would not have the legal right to "stop" her.  I could not hold her against her will.  I would still be in favor of laws limiting abortion.  I would still be in favor of these measures:

Quote

I think we should strongly encourage sensible and ethical sexual behaviors, strongly discourage dissolute and licentious behaviors, make contraceptives (but not abortifacients) readily available and affordable, grant personhood to in utero babies, allow for limited exceptions, provide ample prenatal resources and care, make substantial efforts to humanize babies and counter the dehumanizing rhetoric of the pro-abortion crowd (boy, the "clump of cells" and "parasite" stuff really makes me wince), create widespread awareness about Safe Harbor laws and adoption options, punish abortion providers, and do all of these under the auspices of state law (not federal).

I think there are plenty of people who are, unlike your daughter's MIL, genuinely - not circumstantially - opposed to elective abortion.

24 minutes ago, Analytics said:

It turns out that being against abortions in abstract, being against them when unwanted pregnancies affect you and your own family personally, and being in favor of the government criminalizing them are all different issues.

And yet still quite interrelated.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Quote

But even without enjoying all the rights and privileges of personhood, we do not let each other kill children. 

Wait a second. I thought we agreed that killing otherwise healthy babies that pose no threat to the health of the mother was ok in some circumstances.

And what are those "circumstances"?

Do you think those circumstances create grounds for exceptions to an otherwise broadly-applicable rule?

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

What do you mean then we “do not let each other kill children”? You need to pick a side. 

The Church's position on abortion is nuanced, but still clearly condemnatory of virtually all abortions.  I think mine is as well.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

I have not run into what you call a positive atheist.

Truly?  I have.  Quite a few.  I have a close relative who affirmatively denies the existence of God.

When pressed, though, these folks typically squish into agnosticism because they, like you, dislike the notion of their perspective on God being predicated on "faith" (which, in the absence of knowledge or empirical proof, is what what underlies affirmative denials of the existence of God).

I think most "atheists" have not gone through any sort of systematized research, reflection, thought processes, etc.  It's more often borne of, well, an unwillingness to commit to a religious belief, and/or a "I'm fed up and washing my hands of it all"-style approach, or just simple laziness about or indifference to the issue.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

2 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

far it's getting heavy resistance from neighboring arabia countries, is threatening any form of talks with Saudi Arabia, and is being condemned by a range of international groups

This is what I have seen so far.

[smac97]

12 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Quote

The affirmative denial of the existence of God is a statement of faith.  Not knowledge.  Not empirical proof.

What specific affirmative denial of "God" are you talking about?

"I deny the existence of God."  That would be one way of putting it.  It's not a scientific formula, just a statement (of belief).

12 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Could you show me an example of somebody who denies the existence of "God" as a matter of faith? 

I have a close relative who affirmatively denies the existence of God.  When pressed, though, he pivoted into agnosticism because, I think, he disliked the notion of his perspective on God being predicated on "faith" (which, in the absence of knowledge or empirical proof, is what what underlies affirmative denials of the existence of God).

We had a discussion about it.  At the beginning of the discussion, he affirmatively denied the existence of God.  I asked him how he had come to ascertain that, and he said that he did not believe in God.  I asked him to clarify how he had arrived at a place where he could not just profess a lack of belief, but affirmatively deny the existence of God.  He did not answer right away, so I asked him straight up (I'm paraphrasing from memory) : "I get that a person may not know or care one way or the other if God exists.  But if you affirmatively and specifically deny the existence of God, then you must make that statement on knowledge and empirical proof as to that nonexistence, or else you are just saying that as a matter of belief, also called 'faith.'  So which are you doing?"

He responded by saying that he was doing neither, and that he instead just does not know if God exists or not.

12 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Give me a specific example of an atheist who afirmatively denies the existence of God as a matter of faith and not as a matter of logic as described by George H. Smith. Just one.

Well, that would be a Million Dollar Example.  An atheist who affirmatively denies the existence of God and acknowledges that denial as being an expression of faith would be a rare bird, indeed.  I think "strong" atheists (and not a few of the other kinds) relish looking down on religionists and their stupid reliance on "faith," while not recognizing (or refusing to acknowledge) that, as I have said a few times in a few different ways not, affirmatively denying the existence of God is a statement of faith.  Not knowledge.  Not empirical proof.

12 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Quote

Quote

Furthermore, this distinction between “weak” and “strong” atheism is pretty dated. These days, most atheists are simply empiricists who don’t believe in “God” because of a lack of evidence.

Sure.  I find them to be equivalent to agnostics.

No.

Yes.  I find "soft" or "negative" atheism to be functionally equivalent to agnosticism.  

Soft atheists withhold belief rather than assert nonexistence.

Agnosticism is about knowledge (or the lack thereof) rather than belief.

It mostly ends up a po-tay-to, po-tah-to kind of difference.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Raingirl]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

So "Bad Orange Man" and "TDS" are intolerable, but you calling him "the felon" is hunky dory?

What were those felonies, BTW?

How about "The Guy Who Literally Took an Assassin's Bullet, Then Stood Up and  - While Bloodied - Pumped His First and Shouted 'Fight, Fight, Fight!'"?  Can I call him that?

So,

• Yes, this man has said some vulgar things about women.  I find that stuff, well, vulgar and inexcusable.
• Yes, he cheated on his wife.  Again, inexcusable.
• Some of his political decisions have flawed.
• He's brash and uncouth and derisive in his personal invective.  He needs to improve on that score.

On the other hand,

• He has done a lot of good things as president.  
• And his wife and children seem to genuinely love him.
• And much of the invective against him has been and is ad hoc, pretextual, exaggerated, fabricated, based on simple policy disagreement, and so on.
• And I think he genuinely loves America.  (I don't think the previous POTUS, or Mr. Trump's prior and more recent opponents, do.)
• I think he is well situated to made important and difficult changes to the American political scene. He's a billionaire, so he's not as beholden to special interests, nor does he need to arrange for a feathered nest after he leaves office (unlike pretty much all of his predecessors), and he's kind of old, and he's barred from seeking re-election, so he has more options to do things that are good for the country, while also being potentially difficult / painful / unpopular.
• I am largely - but not completely - on board with both the broad and particular policy changes in his EOs, and with his other executive efforts (a particular exception being that I think, apparently contrary to his immigration enforcement plans, we need to make accommodations for illegal aliens who have been here a long time, but who have otherwise been law-abiding and contributing members of society).
• I am thrilled with him creating more accountability, reducing government waste, getting rid of graft and corruption, and so on.
• And again, he took a bullet, and - in the following moments of panic and terror - he stood up, stopped his security detail for a moment, and while bleeding from the head, he pumped his fist in the air and shouted "Fight, Fight, Fight!"

There can be circumstances that, in the moment, show you the real measure of a man.  That afternoon in Pennsylvania, I think we saw something that was, or should be, acknowledged across-the-board as gutsy, brave, and as "American" as all get-out, and in the best sense of the word.  

I have found the last few weeks interesting.  Latter-day Saints are supposed to be the judgmental, condemnatory ones, but I have been hectored and disparaged precisely because I have not done this with Mr. Trump, and have instead looked past his flaws and appreciated him despite those flaws. 

I feel the same way about Dr. King, whom we can characterize as a great leader of the Civil Rights Movement, or as a serial philander and plagiarist.

I feel the same way about Mahatma Gandhi, whom we can characterize as a great statesman who stood up for the rights of the people of India, or as a racist and sexual weirdo.

I feel the same way about Thomas Jefferson, whom we can characterize as a Founding Father and the principal author of the Declaration of Independence, or as a slaveholder who fathers children with one of his slaves.

And so on.

Also, Mr. Trump is, I believe, appealing his convictions.

Also, the criminal case sure seemed to be, um, fishy.  See, e.g., here:

Thanks,

-Smac

Have you had a stroke?

[smac97]

1 minute ago, Raingirl said:

Have you had a stroke?

And so it goes.  Oh, well.

Thanks,

-Smac

[BlueDreams]

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

I completely agree that Hamas is not “the right side.” But that doesn’t mean Israel automatically occupies the moral high ground, either. The situation is far more complex than the simplistic “good vs. evil” narrative that many cling to.

After World War II, there was a global wave of sympathy for the Jewish people, in no small part because many in the West felt remorse for failing to stop the Holocaust sooner. Western governments, still grappling with their own deep-seated antisemitism, saw a Jewish state in Palestine as a form of atonement—a so-called “solution” to Europe’s Jewish Question. But Israel’s creation didn’t happen in a vacuum. Zionist immigration and activism had been increasing under the British Mandate (post–World War I), and international agreements—often made without genuine regard for the Arab population already living there—helped pave the way for the state’s establishment.

The fact that this land is considered sacred by multiple religions only makes the conflict worse, because religious dogma, by its nature, isn’t subject to reason or accountability. Time and time again, we see that when people believe they are carrying out a divine will, normal ethical constraints are discarded in favor of tribalism, conquest, and oppression. Religious faith provides a built-in excuse for double standards, where acts of violence, discrimination, and land theft are justified as “God’s will” rather than held to any consistent moral principle. Whether it’s Jewish settlers claiming a divine right to Palestinian land, Muslim extremists seeking to destroy Israel in the name of jihad, or Christian Zionists cheering on the conflict because they think it fulfills biblical prophecy, faith has repeatedly served as a license to abandon reason and basic human decency.

Today, major human rights organizations state that Israel’s policies amount to apartheid: Jewish citizens, including many recent immigrants, enjoy full rights and privileges, while Palestinians in the Occupied Territories are systematically denied them. Even Arab citizens of Israel—who do hold citizenship—face institutional discrimination, reinforcing the perception of a two-tiered system based on ethnicity and religion.

Too often, all of this is cloaked in religious nationalism—historically, a proven recipe for oppression and violence. Wouldn’t the best long-term solution be a single, secular state where Jews, Muslims, Christians, and atheists live under the same laws and enjoy equal rights? If the goal is a true democracy, it cannot be structured to privilege one ethno-religious group at the expense of all others.

Ironically, when many Muslims call for the end of Israel as a Jewish state, what they claim to seek is exactly this kind of secular government—one where no group holds religious supremacy. A truly secular state wouldn’t just benefit Palestinians; it would also ensure full religious freedom for everyone, including Christians, Mormons, and others who are currently barred from proselytizing in both Israel and much of the Muslim world. If the concern is justice and equality, then the solution isn’t replacing one form of religious nationalism with another, but rather dismantling the entire system of sectarian privilege.

It’s long past time to stop letting ancient superstitions dictate modern geopolitics. Until universal human rights take precedence over sectarian interests, this conflict will continue to devastate generations on all sides.

There's a lot in here I agree with, but there's a number of things in here that oversimplify the role of religion within israeli politics in particular. It's important to remember that being Jewish is as much an ethnic identity as it is a religious one. Because of that there's not a definitive line between being atheist and being jewish. Secular jews (ones who are not particularly observant of most jewish customs) make up 43% of the Israeli Jewish population. Atheistic/agnostic jews may range from some version of practicing jew to secular jew. From the accounts I've read by atheistic/agnostic Jews who do practice their religion, this is because said religion are community identity markers and binding agents. Judaism is far more about practice than beliefs. Likewise zionism is not just a god-belief oriented doctrine. Zionism was actually first started as a secular nationalist movement.  And Netanyahu is a secular Jew(who's coalition needs the more religious party movements).  It isn't simply God-oriented premises pushing or maintaining premises that maintain tribalism, conquest, and oppression. I'm not saying there's none of that, it would just be oversimplistic and a major blindspot in understanding the region to only focus on religious belief when ethnic identity and power plays absolutely have a fundamental role in maintain this conflict. Getting rid of belief would not immediately get rid of identity, heritage, and national narratives. It would not fix the power dynamic and complex imbalances. It won't necessarily take away cycles of  trauma and retaliatory violence. 

 

With luv,

BD

[ttribe]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

So "Bad Orange Man" and "TDS" are intolerable, but you calling him "the felon" is hunky dory?

What were those felonies, BTW?

Also, Mr. Trump is, I believe, appealing his convictions.

Also, the criminal case sure seemed to be, um, fishy.  See, e.g., here:

I call him a "felon" because he was literally convicted of 34 felonies.

Tell you what, Spencer - tell me everything you know about his criminal case, and I'll tell you everything I know about it. Let's compare notes.

[sunstoned]

7 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

I don’t remember how to do the multi-quotes, so I apologize in advance. I’m sure I’ll regret this. 

1. When does personhood attach to in utero babies?  Please explain your reasoning.

Fetal viability. A viable fetus has a degree of autonomy (in the ability to survive without dependence on the mother’s body) that a non viable fetus does not have. Absent a definitive “life begins at” definition that all would agree on, that’s a decent place to draw the line.

2. What restrictions do you find reasonable for abortions?  Please be specific.

I oppose abortions past fetal viability unless the mother’s life is at risk or the fetus would not survive. The mother’s life takes precedence, though obviously it’s the parents’ decision. In the case of a pregnancy where there is some catastrophic problem with the fetus, it would be cruel to force the mother to carry the pregnancy to term.

3. Do you support post-birth abortions?  If not, why not?

Obviously not. Again, killing an autonomous person is unacceptable.

4 .If "bodily autonomy" is the metric whereby you justify abortion, do you oppose all other restraints on that autonomy?

Thats not my metric, and I’ve never “justified abortion.” 

5. Do you support gender-based abortions (as have been widespread in China)?

I don’t support abortion.

6. Do you support abortion based on the child having Down Syndrome?

I don’t support abortion.

7. Does widespread access to "abandonment" options for the child ("Safe Haven" laws, adoption, etc.) alter your perspective on abortion?

Nope.

8. Why is abortion legal for convenience or preference, but killing a newborn is infanticide?

See above. 

Seems to me the church allows for abortion in certain cases, including the termination of otherwise healthy pregnancies. This suggests that the church does not assign “personhood” to a fetus in utero. So, it just comes down to disapproval of the motivation behind each abortion. I am in no position to impose my judgment about acceptable motivations, so I leave these decisions to the parents and their doctors. 

Agreed.  Also, It's nice hearing from you again, John!

[Raingirl]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

And so it goes.  Oh, well.

Thanks,

-Smac

Quite the non-answer.  No surprise there. 

[BlueDreams]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

So "Bad Orange Man" and "TDS" are intolerable, but you calling him "the felon" is hunky dory?

Technically, felon out of all these labels is based in factual data. He holds felonies. A person convicted of  felonies is the definition of a felon. I guess one could nitpick "the" v "a." But that seems a little an@l. 

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

How about "The Guy Who Literally Took an Assassin's Bullet, Then Stood Up and  - While Bloodied - Pumped His First and Shouted 'Fight, Fight, Fight!'"?  Can I call him that?

little wordy, IMO. But still technically accurate. 

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

• Yes, this man has said some vulgar things about women. He blatantly objectifies women. He has been liable of sexual abuse in a civil lawsuit. And has dozens of viable accusation of sexual harassment and abuse. I find that stuff, well, vulgar and inexcusable.
• Yes, he cheated on his wives. at least Once with later wife number 2, at least 2 separate times with porn stars on his 3rd wife. There's a big chance theres more that's happened that we haven't heard of considering he maintained connections where sexual ludeness and transactions were normal. Again, inexcusable.
• Some of his political decisions have flawed. Hyperpartisan, inflamatory, likely or blatantly unconstitutional, ignored/softened by his admin to reduce the crazy, sources of impeachment trials, incitement of mob violence, allegedly illegal, cruel, myopic, etc. 
• He's brash and uncouth and derisive in his personal invective.  He needs to likely can't improve on that score. It's been a consistent trait that likely stems from his general personality/psyche
• A boatload of other stuff that gets routinely ignored, minimized, or dismissed by people who hold similar views to you. For varying reasons...few I find as convincing.

On the other hand,

• He has done a lot of good things as president. --> if you agree with him and his methods, politically. 
• And his wife and children seem to genuinely love him. --> Definitely subjective and definitely doesn't say much. 
• And much of the invective against him has been and is ad hoc, pretextual, exaggerated, fabricated, based on simple policy disagreement, and so on. -->  Definitely dependent on political lean to believe this line of reasoning
• And I think he genuinely loves America.  (I don't think the previous POTUS, or Mr. Trump's prior and more recent opponents, do.) --> What version of america? Who's america? I think he like money admiration and power more, personally. And I'm absolutely certain that what I love and want for my country is seen as a direct threat and wrong by him.
• I think he is well situated to make important and difficult changes to the American political scene. He's a billionaire, so he's not as beholden to special interests (Minus his own massive personal ones) nor does he need to arrange for a feathered nest after he leaves office (unlike pretty much all of his predecessors) (Because he's made money off of being president), and he's kind of old (Didn't that disqualify the last guy in most people's eyes?), and he's barred from seeking re-election, so he has more options to do things that are good for the country, while also being potentially difficult / painful / unpopular. (or it leaves him more unchained and reckless than before)
• I am largely - but not completely - on board with both the broad and particular policy changes in his EOs, and with his other executive efforts (a particular exception being that I think, apparently contrary to his immigration enforcement plans, we need to make accommodations for illegal aliens who have been here a long time, but who have otherwise been law-abiding and contributing members of society). (I find them a mix of concerning, disturbing, stupid, or for show...depending the EO)
• I am thrilled with him creating more accountability, reducing government waste, getting rid of graft and corruption, and so on. (I am horrified that people think that's what he's doing)
• And again, he took a bullet, and - in the following moments of panic and terror - he stood up, stopped his security detail for a moment, and while bleeding from the headEar, he pumped his fist in the air and shouted "Fight, Fight, Fight!" (he got shot at...that literally means nothing to me in terms of how I should look at him as a person or a leader. Here's a list of world leaders with the most assasination attempts on them. It literally says nothing on how I should view their overall actions either. It's an emotive appeal that falls super flat for me). 

 

In blue are my immediate thoughts when reading your lists. I get that this is a solid rationale for you...but for many people this is going to fall super short and come off very very differently for them. I'm not trying to argue your points individually. I'm just pointing out that what your writing isn't as solid for people like me as it is for you. It can pull up responses of push back and versions of incredulity.  

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I have found the last few weeks interesting.  Latter-day Saints are supposed to be the judgmental, condemnatory ones, but I have been hectored and disparaged precisely because I have not done this with Mr. Trump, and have instead looked past his flaws and appreciated him despite those flaws. 

Look, I haven't followed most of these threads in full. I only have a couple good hours to my name most days right now (early pregnancy's kicking my butt). But to me this reads super flat and a bit victimizey. I've seen you be critiqued and pushed back on by both LDS and Non-LDS members here for your varying views, their conflictual parts, and the holes people see in them. In this sentence alone I want to push back and note that looking past "flaws" can easily become a vice when those flaws are big and look more like flaming red flags flapping in the wind.

I'm not you, I go on the board in small spurts nowadays and I don't elicit a ton of pushback when I do post even when I know people disagree with me. I'm sure it sucks to be dogpiled on. But there might be reasons why the dogpiles are happening. The difference in how I see your posts is likely reflected in others as well. To be frank, this post isn't solid reasoning for me. If I could commit the time, I'd likely be one of the people pushing back on you because this reasoning reads holey and off-putting at best for me. I'd probably stylistically do it differently...but I'd still push back. I'm not sure why you'd expect otherwise. I assume people will push on my opinions when I'm pulling out my own views that I know people will disagree with. That I know are controversial or at the very least conflictual to other's views. It's kinda the way of online discord.

 

With luv, if not a little exasperation,

BD  

[Analytics]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

"I deny the existence of God."  That would be one way of putting it.  It's not a scientific formula, just a statement (of belief).

An atheist who has seriously considered the issue wouldn’t say, “I deny the existence of God.” Instead, he might say, “I don’t believe in ‘God’ because the concept is too vaguely defined, and no sufficient evidence has been presented to justify belief.”

If the theist then describes God as an incorporeal being without body, parts, or passions, who sits on a “topless throne,” whose center is everywhere and circumference nowhere, who fills the universe yet dwells in your heart, and who saves people entirely by grace rather than their own actions—then the atheist might respond differently.

At that point, he could confidently say, “No, I am sure such a being doesn’t exist for the same reason I’m sure square circles don’t exist.” A “topless throne” is a contradiction; if it has no top, one cannot sit on it. The description is self-defeating, making belief in such a being logically impossible. This isn’t faith—it’s logic.

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

An atheist who affirmatively denies the existence of God and acknowledges that denial as being an expression of faith would be a rare bird, indeed.  I think "strong" atheists (and not a few of the other kinds) relish looking down on religionists and their stupid reliance on "faith," while not recognizing (or refusing to acknowledge) that, as I have said a few times in a few different ways not, affirmatively denying the existence of God is a statement of faith.  Not knowledge.  Not empirical proof.

Yes, you’ve explained a few times to atheists what atheists believe and why they believe it. But wouldn’t it be better to focus on what you believe and why, while extending the same courtesy to atheists?

Atheism, particularly in its “strong” form, isn’t necessarily a matter of faith—it’s a matter of logic and evidence. A strong atheist doesn’t deny God’s existence arbitrarily; rather, he rejects the concept of God in the same way one rejects square circles or married bachelors. If a concept is internally incoherent or lacks empirical support, rejecting it isn’t an act of faith—it’s a rational conclusion.

If a theist describes God in terms that contain logical contradictions—such as a “topless throne” or a being that is simultaneously everywhere and nowhere—then rejecting that description isn’t faith, it’s simply applying reason. The burden of proof lies with the one making the claim. Without a clear, coherent definition and sufficient evidence, disbelief is not an act of faith, but the most reasonable position to take.

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Yes.  I find "soft" or "negative" atheism to be functionally equivalent to agnosticism.  

I noticed that you didn’t engage with the authoritative definitions of atheism and agnosticism that I provided.

Theism is the belief in God. Atheism is simply the lack of that belief. Agnosticism, rather than being a middle ground, is a separate stance entirely—it’s the position that the existence of God is inherently unknowable. Someone can be both an agnostic and an atheist (if they think God’s existence is unknowable but still don’t believe) or an agnostic and a theist (if they think it’s unknowable but believe anyway).

So, rather than atheism and agnosticism being functionally the same, they actually address different questions: belief and knowledge.

 

[The Nehor]

7 hours ago, smac97 said:

Poll: 73% of Palestinians support October 7 attacks by Hamas

Again: Poll: 73% of Palestinians support October 7 attacks by Hamas

Those aren’t numbers from before the attacks obviously. That poll is from eight months after the attacks and enduring eight months of hell. Yeah, being bombed and 80% of the population having family severely wounded or killed is going to radicalize a population further. Is that at all surprising to you? Were you expecting this conflict to make them more conciliatory towards Israel?

Dig into that poll some more though and it doesn’t support the narrative that everyone there are pro-Hamas. Oddly though political support for Hamas was at about a third before the attacks and is now at about 40% so nowhere near the amount that think the attack was a good idea.. When polled how they would vote a huge chunk said they wouldn’t vote, presumably doubting any government they chose would matter at all. More said they would vote for Fatah candidates than Hamas ones suggesting deep unhappiness with the current government. Only 29% said they would vote for a Hamas president. 62% wanted a government that was not controlled by a single party. Sounds like people who would prefer a representative government to an authoritarian one.

Only 45% support a two-state solution but that is so vague that it is not useful. What two-state solution?

 When you are oppressed and someone punches up at the oppressors they tend to be celebrated. This is not shocking. It does not make them monsters who somehow deserve their current state. As I said before Palestinians are much more oppressed than the American revolutionaries were and we don’t talk endlessly about how good they had it so they shouldn’t have punched up at the British.

7 hours ago, smac97 said:

So do I.  They could start with stopping the hatred of Jews and the supporting of terrorists.  Until and unless these things happen, the depravities, and the lack of liberty and self-governance, will persist.

They could. It would be a good thing. It wouldn’t help them at all though in achieving any freedom. The idea that if Palestinians play nice that Israel will give them a state or increased rights is pretty laughable at this point. The only reason the Israeli settlers were withdrawn from Gaza was that Palestinians made it too dangerous. In the West Bank where it never got that dangerous Israeli settlements (illegal under international law btw) are being put up at an accelerating rate. ‘Behaving’ wasn’t going to win them anything. When you create a perverse incentive system for violence you shouldn’t be surprised when violence shows up.

This is also a horrible approach to take to rights. You can’t have any rights until you learn to behave and we decide you are ready for them is not a workable approach. Those aren’t rights anymore. They are privileges and you have no real hope of keeping them. Israel needs to make a decision to either annex their conquered lands and integrate the people or give up military control and let them self-govern. Keeping the inhabitants under military occupation from a war that ended decades ago is insane and both Israel and the Palestinians are victims of this insanity.

Does that make the attacks good? No. It does make them very unsurprising. I also have my doubts that Netanyahu was displeased by the attacks. They gave him exactly what he needed. I don’t think there was a conspiracy involved but keeping the enemy champing at the bit is holding off his opponents. Israel is currently enacting voter suppression laws to try to keep Netanyahu in power with all the conflict that is going to spark.

[The Nehor]

6 hours ago, smac97 said:

How about "The Guy Who Literally Took an Assassin's Bullet, Then Stood Up and  - While Bloodied - Pumped His First and Shouted 'Fight, Fight, Fight!'"?  Can I call him that?

No, not accurate.

It would be “The Guy Who Was Literally Grazed By An Assassin’s Bullet…etc.”

If we are insisting on being literal.

Edited February 12, 2025 by The Nehor

[Analytics]

9 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

There's a lot in here I agree with, but there's a number of things in here that oversimplify the role of religion within israeli politics in particular. It's important to remember that being Jewish is as much an ethnic identity as it is a religious one. Because of that there's not a definitive line between being atheist and being jewish. Secular jews (ones who are not particularly observant of most jewish customs) make up 43% of the Israeli Jewish population. Atheistic/agnostic jews may range from some version of practicing jew to secular jew. From the accounts I've read by atheistic/agnostic Jews who do practice their religion, this is because said religion are community identity markers and binding agents. Judaism is far more about practice than beliefs. Likewise zionism is not just a god-belief oriented doctrine. Zionism was actually first started as a secular nationalist movement.  And Netanyahu is a secular Jew(who's coalition needs the more religious party movements).  It isn't simply God-oriented premises pushing or maintaining premises that maintain tribalism, conquest, and oppression. I'm not saying there's none of that, it would just be oversimplistic and a major blindspot in understanding the region to only focus on religious belief when ethnic identity and power plays absolutely have a fundamental role in maintain this conflict. Getting rid of belief would not immediately get rid of identity, heritage, and national narratives. It would not fix the power dynamic and complex imbalances. It won't necessarily take away cycles of  trauma and retaliatory violence. 

 

With luv,

BD

I agree with you, and the core issue remains: Israel grants preferential rights to Jewish immigrants over the native Palestinian population. While Japan, for example, prioritizes its own ethnic group, its people have lived there continuously. In contrast, Israel’s Jewish population is largely made up of immigrants, yet Palestinians who have lived there for generations are treated as second-class citizens. The problem isn’t just religion—it’s the displacement and institutionalized inequality that favor newcomers over natives. A true solution would be a secular state that guarantees equal rights for all, not just one group.

[Teancum]

12 hours ago, smac97 said:

So "Bad Orange Man" and "TDS" are intolerable, but you calling him "the felon" is hunky dory?

What were those felonies, BTW?

I did that intentionally so you understood what it is like with your childish approach.   And you know darn well what the felonies are. And there would have been more had Merrick Garland not dragged his feet.

[BlueDreams]

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

I agree with you, and the core issue remains: Israel grants preferential rights to Jewish immigrants over the native Palestinian population. While Japan, for example, prioritizes its own ethnic group, its people have lived there continuously. In contrast, Israel’s Jewish population is largely made up of immigrants, yet Palestinians who have lived there for generations are treated as second-class citizens. The problem isn’t just religion—it’s the displacement and institutionalized inequality that favor newcomers over natives. A true solution would be a secular state that guarantees equal rights for all, not just one group.

That I absolutely agree with you on this one. The biggest problem to this is No country seems to be pushing for it and up till Oct 7 the belief in any truly peaceful/egalitarian solution was crapping out in both populations (Israeli and Palestinian). In order to get to a truly peaceful solution of a single or two state variety is going to take monumental efforts and shifts in strategies. It's likely also going to take monumental cultural shifts that get both communities out of a zero-sum mentality and into a more humbled reconciliatory one. 

Heaven knows I have no clue how to get there. If I had to take a wild shot in the dark, i would assume it would include true consequences to Israel In a similar way that SA experienced for its apartheid regime. Serious limitations to US military aid for Israel in a way that allows for protections against Iran but severely curtails what counts as "defense" in the west bank and gaza. Mixed in with propping up and broadcasting peaceful means of protest and voices within Palestinian communities to give a sense of greater viability and potency to peaceful means of resistance. At some point greater communications between every day Palestinians and Israeli Jews would wouldn't hurt either. Or at least a reduction of propagandic misinformation about both sides that increases domination as a solution to security.

 

With luv,

BD 

Edited February 12, 2025 by BlueDreams

[Teancum]

12 hours ago, smac97 said:

So "Bad Orange Man" and "TDS" are intolerable, but you calling him "the felon" is hunky dory?

What were those felonies, BTW?

How about "The Guy Who Literally Took an Assassin's Bullet, Then Stood Up and  - While Bloodied - Pumped His First and Shouted 'Fight, Fight, Fight!'"?  Can I call him that?

So,

• Yes, this man has said some vulgar things about women.  I find that stuff, well, vulgar and inexcusable.
• Yes, he cheated on his wife.  Again, inexcusable.
• Some of his political decisions have flawed.
• He's brash and uncouth and derisive in his personal invective.  He needs to improve on that score.

On the other hand,

• He has done a lot of good things as president.  
• And his wife and children seem to genuinely love him.
• And much of the invective against him has been and is ad hoc, pretextual, exaggerated, fabricated, based on simple policy disagreement, and so on.
• And I think he genuinely loves America.  (I don't think the previous POTUS, or Mr. Trump's prior and more recent opponents, do.)
• I think he is well situated to make important and difficult changes to the American political scene. He's a billionaire, so he's not as beholden to special interests, nor does he need to arrange for a feathered nest after he leaves office (unlike pretty much all of his predecessors), and he's kind of old, and he's barred from seeking re-election, so he has more options to do things that are good for the country, while also being potentially difficult / painful / unpopular.
• I am largely - but not completely - on board with both the broad and particular policy changes in his EOs, and with his other executive efforts (a particular exception being that I think, apparently contrary to his immigration enforcement plans, we need to make accommodations for illegal aliens who have been here a long time, but who have otherwise been law-abiding and contributing members of society).
• I am thrilled with him creating more accountability, reducing government waste, getting rid of graft and corruption, and so on.
• And again, he took a bullet, and - in the following moments of panic and terror - he stood up, stopped his security detail for a moment, and while bleeding from the head, he pumped his fist in the air and shouted "Fight, Fight, Fight!"

There can be circumstances that, in the moment, show you the real measure of a man.  That afternoon in Pennsylvania, I think we saw something that was, or should be, acknowledged across-the-board as gutsy, brave, and as "American" as all get-out, and in the best sense of the word.  

I have found the last few weeks interesting.  Latter-day Saints are supposed to be the judgmental, condemnatory ones, but I have been hectored and disparaged precisely because I have not done this with Mr. Trump, and have instead looked past his flaws and appreciated him despite those flaws. 

I feel the same way about Dr. King, whom we can characterize as a great leader of the Civil Rights Movement, or as a serial philanderer and plagiarist.

I feel the same way about Mahatma Gandhi, whom we can characterize as a great statesman who stood up for the rights of the people of India, or as a racist and sexual weirdo.

I feel the same way about Thomas Jefferson, whom we can characterize as a Founding Father and the principal author of the Declaration of Independence, or as a slaveholder who fathered children with one of his slaves.

And so on.

Also, Mr. Trump is, I believe, appealing his convictions.

Also, the criminal case sure seemed to be, um, fishy.  See, e.g., here:

Thanks,

-Smac

I have no interest in debating the merits, or lack thereof, of Trump and the fact that America elected him again with you. It is clear you are pretty pumped up about his second term and what he is doing. We are 180 degrees apart on this. I think what he and Musk are doing are bringing us to a potential constitutional crisis. Apparently you do not.  I guess we will watch and see how that plays out. My opposition to Trump as president boils down to one thing. I think it is pretty clear the man betrayed his oath to the constitution by his actions in attempting to overturn the 2020 election.  I am all but certain had the legal system led to the case led by Jack Smith would have led to a conviction. That to me alone is disqualifying for him to hold any office let alone the office of the president.  But the legal system played out in his favor and here we are.  Last of all, how anyone who claims to adhere to the morals of Mormonism as well as Christianity can support the most amoral man to ever hold the office of president is beyond me. If Trump were a democrat you and millions of others who claim to value such morals never would have supported him. I have learned that character really does not matter to those who claim such morals and that their politics is more important than their claimed morals, values and ethics.

[Teancum]

11 hours ago, smac97 said:

think most "atheists" have not gone through any sort of systematized research, reflection, thought processes, etc.  It's more often borne of, well, an unwillingness to commit to a religious belief, and/or a "I'm fed up and washing my hands of it all"-style approach, or just simple laziness about or indifference to the issue.

Maybe. Sort of like most people when it comes to religion. Most are adherents to one degree or another to the religion they have grown up with. Few ever think about or challenge the validity of their claims. 

[stelf]

A huge concern I have with all the arguments I see here or anywhere in favor of Christian Nationalism, or really any form of nationalism, is the prideful belief that because someone happened to be born here they are somehow (or at least should be) better or more privileged than someone born somewhere else. I think this is directly contradictory to the belief that we are all children of God.